Brown v. Baldwin et al
Filing
16
MERIT REVIEW OPINION #2 denying 3 Motion to Request Counsel; granting 8 Motion for Leave to File. Clerk to docket the amended complaint attached to Plaintiff's Motion 8 . Plaintiff's complaint as it related to his claims against off icials at Taylorville Correctional Center is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Clerk is directed to terminate Defendants Skinner, Berninger, and Hardway. This case is transferred to the Southern District of Illinois to address Plaintiff's remaining claims. Any motions not addressed in the Order shall be addressed by the transferee court. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 03/20/2017. (SKN, ilcd) [Transferred from Illinois Central on 3/21/2017.]
E-FILED
Tuesday, 21 March, 2017 02:33:00 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN BALDWIN, et al.
)
Defendants. )
KENNETH BROWN,
16-3215
MERIT REVIEW OPINION #2
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at
Shawnee Correctional Center, brings the present lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations at Taylorville
Correctional Center and Shawnee Correctional Center. The matter
comes before this Court for merit review of Plaintiff’s amended
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. In reviewing the
amended complaint, the Court takes all factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729
F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted).
Page 1 of 8
ALLEGATIONS IN AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff was incarcerated at Taylorville Correctional Center
(“Taylorville”). Plaintiff alleges a chain of events that began on
February 24, 2014, when Defendant Skinner, a correctional officer,
stared at him in the law library for no apparent reason. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Skinner then wrote him a disciplinary ticket
for unauthorized movement (walking too fast) approximately six (6)
weeks later. Plaintiff alleges that he received one month of yard
denial as a result of the ticket, despite the Adjustment Committee’s
recommendation that he only receive a yard restriction for two
weeks. Plaintiff alleges the Administrative Review Board in
Springfield ignored his grievances related to this issue.
Plaintiff alleges that, on July 15, 2014, someone spilled
ketchup on the white shoelaces of his new gym shoes. Plaintiff
alleges that he removed the laces, washed them, and while he was
waiting for them to dry, temporarily laced his shoes with black
laces. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Skinner told him to
surrender his shoes upon observation of the black laces. Plaintiff
refused. Plaintiff alleges he then packed his belongings and walked
to segregation despite Defendant Berninger, a correctional
Page 2 of 8
lieutenant, stating that he did not want Plaintiff going to
segregation and that the situation was “not that serious.”
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Berninger wrote a disciplinary
report accusing him of disobeying the lieutenant’s orders.
According to Plaintiff, the disciplinary report failed to mention
Defendant Skinner’s name and implied that Plaintiff had issues
with Defendant Berninger, which was not true. Plaintiff alleges that
he received 15 days segregation, 1 month C-grade, and a
disciplinary transfer to Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”) as
a result. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Funk, the Illinois
Department of Corrections’ transfer coordinator, violated a state
statute by transferring him to Shawnee while his grievance on the
matter was pending.
Plaintiff alleges that once at Shawnee, he was housed in
segregation-like conditions instead of being sent to general
population. Plaintiff alleges that, for 21 days, he was not allowed to
walk to meals or go to the gym or allowed out of his cell twice a day
for dayroom. Plaintiff also alleges that the electrical outlets were
inoperable and the cable outlet had been removed from the wall.
Page 3 of 8
ANALYSIS
The Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and
unusual punishment encompasses two general categories: (1)
punishment that is considered “cruel and unusual without regard
to the conduct for which they are imposed;” and (2) those forms of
punishment disproportionate to the offenses for which they are
imposed. Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir. 2001);
Turley, 729 F.3d at 652. To state a claim under the Eighth
Amendment, a prisoner must allege that (1) he suffered a sufficient
deprivation such that he was deprived of the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities, and (2) that prison officials acted with
deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994). Plaintiff alleges that the discipline he received on two
separate occasions violated the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff alleges first that he was placed on yard restriction for
one month despite a prison official’s recommendation that the
restriction should have only lasted two weeks. Plaintiff does not
allege he should not have been found guilty, only that, the Court
assumes, he should have only been placed on a yard restriction
consistent with the prison official’s alleged recommendation.
Page 4 of 8
Plaintiff does not allege that he was deprived of the ability to
exercise, or allege that he was forced to endure any other
deprivation as a result. He alleges no injury. Therefore, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and that any
amendment would be futile.
Next, Plaintiff alleges that he was found guilty based upon a
falsified disciplinary report. According to Plaintiff, the disciplinary
report should have reflected his issues with Defendant Skinner
instead of stating that he disobeyed Defendant Berninger’s orders.
Plaintiff’s issues with Defendant Skinner notwithstanding, Plaintiff
alleges that he walked himself to segregation despite Defendant
Berninger’s statements that he did not want Plaintiff going to
segregation because the situation was “not that serious.” The only
reasonable inference from these allegations is that Plaintiff
disobeyed Defendant Berninger’s orders to resolve the situation
without going to segregation.
The short duration of Plaintiff’s stay in segregation while
incarcerated at Taylorville, along with his allegations that he went
to the segregation unit on his own volition to apparently dictate his
housing situation, does not lend itself to a plausible inference that
Page 5 of 8
the 15-day segregation sanction imposed violated the Eighth
Amendment. While Plaintiff had to wait 10 days before he received
a hearing, prison officials may temporarily place an inmate in
segregation pending review of disciplinary violations. See Holly v.
Woolfolk, 415 F.3d 678, 680 (7th Cir. 2005) (analogizing temporary
segregation for an alleged violation of a disciplinary rule to an arrest
without a warrant pending a probable cause hearing). Finally,
violation of a state statute does not create a federal claim. Allison v.
Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2003).
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that any
amendment would be futile.
Shawnee Claims
Shawnee is located in Johnson County, Illinois, which is
located within the Southern District of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. § 93(c).
Plaintiff alleges discrete claims related to his conditions of
confinement against officials that presumably reside within the
Southern District. No plausible inference arises that any defendant
residing within the Central District of Illinois caused the conditions
of confinement of which Plaintiff complains.
Page 6 of 8
Venue for federal civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). According to that
statute, such actions may be brought only in (1) the judicial district
where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same
State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) a judicial
district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district
in which the action may otherwise be brought. Id. Therefore, the
Court finds that venue is proper in the Southern District of Illinois.
In the interests of justice, this case shall be transferred there. See
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [8]
is GRANTED. Clerk is directed to docket the amended
complaint attached to Plaintiff’s motion.
2) Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel [3]. Plaintiff
has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in this
case. In considering the Plaintiff’s motion, the court asks:
(1) has the indigent Plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to
obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing
so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the
plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself? Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007), citing Farmer
v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir.1993). Plaintiff has
not shown that he made a reasonable effort to obtain
counsel on his own. A plaintiff usually does this by
Page 7 of 8
attaching copies of letters sent to attorneys seeking
representation and copies of any responses received.
Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong, the
Court does not address the second. Plaintiff’s motion [3]
is DENIED.
3) Plaintiff's complaint as it relates to his claims against
officials at Taylorville Correctional Center is dismissed for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any amendment to the Complaint
would be futile. Clerk is directed to terminate Defendants
Skinner, Berninger, and Hardway.
4) This case is transferred to the Southern District of Illinois
to address Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Any motions not
addressed in this Order shall be addressed by the
transferee court.
ENTERED:
March 20, 2017.
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?